I agree. I particularly agree with your last words about laying out a "forward looking vision." We need to take care to not just react.

Good points but you missed the part about contributing and supporting organizations which will do what you are espousing when you say "we must..." Much of this will be through lobbying and litigation. Sitting home in 'progressive" areas such as MV and complaining will do nothing. Organizations that have the expertise and infrastructure to carry the message forward with action need our support.

Perhaps you can also have our city attorney explain what positions our Council can legally take to send messages to Washington. Thanks to Google and others, MV is on the map and should exploit this to remind Trump and his minions that there is a world beyond his golden tower and his yes-men, and that there will not be silent approval for policies which seek to return us to the 19th century.

Proud to have Lenny and the rest of our level-headed Council representing our city.

I too voted against Trump, but some of the unexamined rhetoric now casually thrown around by disappointed local voters only adds legitimacy to his win. People will look everywhere for causes of their complaints, except in a mirror:

- Trump is a divisive figure; yet Clinton, by contemptuously dismissing his supporters as "deplorable," likely increased their numbers. I see echoes of that self-defeating condescension already on this comments page ("remind Trump and his minions that there is a world beyond his golden tower and his yes-men, and that there will not be silent approval for policies which seek to return us to the 19th century").

- The "Electoral College vs. popular-vote" angle is a silly irrelevance because it wrongly implies the popular vote would have been identical if that were how the US chose presidents. The GOP strategically ignored California and its foregone, winner-take-all electoral-college result, which is why "Trump won less than a third of the presidential votes in California." Had it been a popular-vote presidential election, they'd have actively campaigned here, easily achieved 2-3 million more popular votes, and Trump would still have won. (Then Barbara Boxer would now be complaining about the popular-vote format, calling for a switch to Electoral-College elections!)

- Thoughtfully examining (not just projecting your own pat assumptions about) WHY many Americans voted for Trump might promote understanding. Example of what won't promote understanding: a local teacher taking a class period to "talk about how Trump may deport or kill all non-whites" (as one shocked, non-Trump-voting, local parent recently reported).

The problem with progressives is that they are not really progressive. They claim to know a lot about issues, but most of the solutions are more big government, fewer human rights and more taxes. Now that's a new approach. Not

Lenny,
Well said.

Cindy,
I also have been thinking about which organizations are well suited and positioned to advocate for progressive values. Can you recommend any national groups, where my limited funds might be the most effective?

Two areas that are important to me are covered by NRDC and Soc Security Works. But I'm looking for an organization with broader platforms.

I learned that "[p]eople vote based upon a wide range of domestic and foreign issues, personal identity, party loyalty, and candidates' personalities" from Lyndon Johnson. He called this "pluralism": people recognize their loyalties according to the issues that are important to them, and there may be many such issues that have different weights. The extreme partisanship from which Lenny's analysis diverges is relatively new in American politics, since Newt Gingrich spelled out his "contract with America" in 1995.

Considering the particular issues that move voters is important whether or not the political atmosphere is rigidly divided. There are always sensitivities that don't match the standard analysis.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the majority of comments and conclusions in this article.

The first thing is that I do not believe in MAN-MADE climate change or global warming or whatever new topic it will be called in the future. I am old enough to remember when the "scientists" came to a consensus that the earth was cooling due to fossil fuels. Then it morphed into global warming, and now the latest scare tactic is climate change. The emails obtained from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit proved that the scientists were manipulating the data and filing in inexplicable gaps in order to prove their preconceived and desired conclusions.

Second, if the results in Michigan remain the same, Trump will have 306 Electoral College votes to Clinton's 232, which is a landslide victory, especially considering the fact that Trump won states that had not been won by Republicans in over 30 years. In addition he also won 29 of the 50 states. A clear plurality.

Third, Republicans did not hold on to their majorities because of "sparsely populated states". I would hardly call Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama sparsely populated! The Republicans won in all those states with the exception of Pennsylvania by comfortable margins. Also with regard to the Congressional elections, the Democrats hemorrhaged seats in the last two mid-term elections due to the policies of the current administration.

Fourth, no one is calling for the coal and oil industries to be "unregulated". That is hyperbole and a scare tactic. What Trump is proposing is to reduce some of the more draconian regulations that have hurt the industries, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, been a drag on the US economy, and at one point led to a tripling of the price of a gallon of gas which has regressive effects on the budgets of poor and middle class American's who can least afford it.

Fifth, he is not in office yet, so to speculate on his effect on Human Rights is premature to say the least. Except for the hundreds of false stories planted in the press, such as those showing a picture of Trump with his parents dressed in KKK outfits, as yet unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse and so on, I have seen no evidence that Trump has any intentions of turning America into a replica of Nazi Germany.

Sixth, it was not Trump's rhetoric that led to increased prejudice but that of the press. The press has taken every opportunity to paint the police in the harshest light possible even though they are doing a tremendously difficult job and have been targeted for random attacks because of the irresponsible behavior of the press in giving poeple the impression that most of them set out to deliberately attack and kill innocent Black people. This is patently and demostrably false!. I also take issue with your statement that "Trump's campaign rhetoric will undoubtedly lead to heightened prejudice and institutionally racist practices in law enforcement, immigration, and elsewhere". These are the types of statements that create problems, not solve them. I prefer to wait and see what happens first, then take appropriate (and legal) actions if necessary.

Sixth, with regard to the LGBTQ community, Trump has a history of standing up for their rights and was among the first to condemn the terrorist attack against them in the Florida nightclub.

Lastly, I have seen very little evidence of any "racist outbursts" by Trump supporters. Most of the stories that have been reported in the press have been demonstrably false or have been the actions of people that actually did not support Trump, but drew swastikas and took other actions to implicate Trump supporters. What I DID SEE was a woman being threatened and having eggs and other objects thrown at her right here in San Jose just for attending a Trump rally, Trump supporters or suspected supporters being beaten for no reason; and here in San Jose and across America, people upset that Trump won, rioting, looting and destroying property in many major U.S. cities, Black, Latino, and LGBTQ Trump supporters receiving death threats, and so on. I am very disappointed that you made no mention of those issues which ACTUALLY happened and instead chose to comment on what you THINK will happen.

I think it is important that we ALL not bow to fear and hatred, but instead work together to make things better for everyone.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim Neal is a Trump apologist. Big big Trump guy. Lock that bit of knowledge down forever. Never forget that.

Thanks Jim for some reasonable responses instead of the hyperbolic reactionary people who only want to see the bad in other people so they can feel good about themselves

Jim Neal is a voice of calm, rational reason substantiated by solid fact. The fact that so many are clinging to a false ideology and refuse to even consider alternatives and the possibility that just maybe, just perhaps there are other sides to things is what will keep trump and his supporters in the drivers seat.

California is such a bubble, people here have only been exposed to one very radical side of things so Iits not hard to understand or even begin to fathom that there are alternatives. But to continue to deny and refuse to be open to other ideas is not going to bring peace to our country.

@Thanks, I appreciate that you feel that way but can you dispute Jims statements with differing facts rather than just spouting nonsense? Be nice to have a discussion rather than just shutting him down with some random generic comment.

com'on guys! To say Trump's image is a media-induced thing is to ignore all the bigoted trash that came out of his own month over the entire campaign. Did he fail to insult any group, other than his base?

And now that I mention it, he insulted many that decided to vote for him anyway, voters who were willing to ignore many aspects of his character and history. Voters that felt ignored by the powers-that-be, who wanted to shake things up beyond any other consideration.

Ultimately he was considered the better choice by many, among two historically bad candidates. Not a resounding endorsement, imo.

@Bob, I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled. I don't see any comments where anyone said that Trump's image was media induced. In my own commentary, I stated that it wasn't Trump's rhetoric that led to the increased racial tensions and that is absolutely true for the reasons I have already outlined.

No political candidate is without flaws and the purpose of what I wrote was less about defending Trump than to address the comments in the article with which I disagree and to provide an alternative viewpoint that some people may not be familiar with.

Many people do not have an understanding of why the election turned out the way it did and my hope is that anyone who reads my comments will consider them, even if they don't agree. I am sick and tired of all the violence and I am hoping to encourage an open and honest dialogue without all the labels, name calling, preconceptions, threats, and intimidation that have so far been on open display.

Demonizing one side or another helps no one and in the end makes us all poorer as a nation.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Bob, and Hilary's "Deplorables" comment was oh-so-complimentary? It was OK then? Look, they BOTH have their down sides and their negatives. They BOTH had questionable aspects to character and history. BOTH of them did.

As Jim said, we all, both sides, need to stop demonizong and disparaging those who have different views. And we need to accept that sometimes there isn't this clear black and white of right and wrong. Rather there are a myriad of thoughts, feelings, perceptions of ideas and maybe, just maybe, we need to concede that it's ok to agree to disagree. It's ok for someone to feel differently.

I am a Trump supporter (reticent, not thrilled with the whole package but still a supporter). I did not once say this to anyone except my closest of friends and family for fear of being ostracized, criticized and ridiculed. I'm also a pretty average, normal, middle of the line person. I can't tell you the number of conversations since the election that I've heard where people are shocked that their neighbor voted for Trump, they had no idea, they didn't think there even was anyone who could do such a thing. And yet here he is, Prsident-elect. If one can't seriously step back and take a very solid look at why and how this happened, if you can't acknowledge there there is another side out there worth hearing then shame on you, you're part of the problem and. It stepping up and trying to be part of a so.ution.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Face plant - With what in particular do you take objection to? ( And for the record, my previous comments are strictly as a resident of Mountain View ) Do you have objections to my activities on the commission itself? If so, which? Or are your objections based on my comments here? Which?

As I stated previously, my desire is to present alternative points of view that people may not have considered. Mountain View is a very diverse city with many people of different backgrounds, cultures, religions, etc. and I believe that they all deserve to be heard and respected.

If you would like to speak to me at any time about your concerns, I would be more than happy to speak with you regarding them. I have included my personal e-mail below for anyone who wishes to contact me.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
jrdoricneal@hotmail.com

Jim,

Thanks for your posts and reminding me why I have never voted for you.

Jim,

Thanks for your posts and reminding me why I voted for you.